Arkansas committee adopts amendment and passes bill to remove cost‑sharing ban for certain genetic cancer tests

Representative Mark Allen presented an amendment and then House Bill 1079 to the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee, which the panel adopted and later passed as amended.

The amendment removed a prohibition affecting the Employee Benefits Division (EBD) that had barred certain cost‑sharing mechanisms for clinically appropriate genetic testing. "We are only getting removed from the prohibition on cost sharing," Grant Wallace, director of the Employee Benefits Division, told the committee. "It would still allow EBD to have co pays; it count towards deductibles, coinsurance, all of those normal things… Since this amendment is then... I would assume... there would be no impact to the plan with that."

The change was approved on a voice vote after Representative Allen moved adoption of the amendment. The committee then heard testimony on the bill as amended and voted to pass the bill.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill will expand access to clinically indicated genetic testing for people at high risk of hereditary cancers, help tailor screening and treatment, and avoid preventable advanced diagnoses. Sam McCool, a hematologist‑oncologist who testified as a patient representative and director of CARTI’s clinical research and high‑risk genomics program, framed the bill as a life‑saving intervention: "Early detection gives people a fighting chance," he said, and described cases in which genetic testing and targeted therapies changed outcomes for individual patients.

What supporters told the committee: Physician testimony described historical limits and key changes in testing availability. McCool recounted that Myriad Genetics once held patents limiting BRCA testing; after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2013 opened testing to other laboratories, more patients became eligible for screening and follow‑up surveillance. He described a patient, Linda Hendrickson, whose later genetic testing identified two mutations and enabled intensive surveillance and therapy (including the PARP inhibitor olaparib) that helped detect and treat a subsequent lung cancer earlier. "Without the genetic testing... honestly we would have missed her lung cancer," McCool said.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) also testified in support. "Passage of House Bill 1079 will allow more patients to better understand their lifetime cancer risk and access much‑needed resources and screenings for risk reduction," Lindsay Penn, a volunteer with ACS CAN, said in testimony.

Fiscal and administrative detail: A fiscal impact statement was at committee members’ desks; committee testimony from EBD staff indicated the principal cost driver had been the prior prohibition on cost sharing. Wallace said that removing the prohibition should remove the projected fiscal impact on the state employee plan, because EBD could continue to use standard plan design tools (copays, deductibles, coinsurance) and manage utilization accordingly.

Questions and scope: Committee members pressed for clinical triggers and eligibility standards for testing. McCool said the bill focuses on patients who meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations and other nationally accepted criteria (for example, certain young breast and colorectal cancer patients). "At this point, the bill is focusing on those patients that would fit the recommendations of the NCCN guidelines," he said. Testimony emphasized that most recommendations apply to people already diagnosed with cancer, those with a strong family history, or those meeting clinical criteria for hereditary risk.

Votes and outcome: The committee adopted the amendment (voice vote) and later voted to pass House Bill 1079 as amended (voice vote). No roll‑call tally was recorded in the committee transcript.

Clarifying details from testimony: Dr. McCool estimated the number of people with some genetic abnormality in their genomes could be on the order of "about 2,000" identified individuals in a program example and, counting extended family members, "probably 20,000" affected relatives — figures he described as approximate and intended to show testing’s cascade impact. EBD staff said the fiscal driver was the earlier ban on cost sharing rather than testing volume. Supporters referenced the drug olaparib by name as an available targeted therapy for some mutation carriers.

What the bill does not change: Testimony clarified the amendment removes only the prohibition on cost‑sharing rules for EBD plan design; it does not ban copays or preclude standard deductibles and coinsurance. The committee did not adopt language expanding testing beyond clinically appropriate, guideline‑based indications.

Next steps: The committee approved the bill as amended and reported it out of committee to the full House. The committee transcript contains no final appropriations or implementation timetable in committee testimony.